LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extraordinary Solution to fix
Government:Peopleisim.org

ADVERTISE HERE:

Following legal procedure, Clive files the following Demure
against the Santa Cruz DA. The Court simply ignores it and continues
without any 5th Amendment mandated Grand Jury Indictment or
Presentment. Clearly these Courts are a law unto themselves.

THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT CHARGES PURSUANT TO CPS 1004 (1), (4) &
(5) AND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

INTRODUCTION

This case
involves a divorce case that has been blown out of control by a divorce
case respondent and her lawyer who have repeatedly utilized law
enforcement to assault Defendant. Starting with the first
false CPS & 911 calls in 2002 for which Defendantâs ex-wife,
Respondent Anamaria Boustred was ordered out of the family home on July
12, 2002 by the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack, Exhibit A.
Said divorce case Respondent and her Lawyer Vicky Pary have
consistently continued a strategy to âemployâ law enforcement to
further their goals.

This case was
filed against Defendant in order to allow his ex-wife and her lawyer,
Vicky Parry to steal Defendantâs home and as a retaliatory measure
against Defendant by the Santa Cruz Sheriffâs, District Attorney,
Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph, and Defendantâs ex and her Lawyer Vicky
Parry who Defendant was suing for outrageous offences committed against
Defendant and his children.

It was Anamaria
Boustredâs false 911 call on March 10, 2003 which resulted in Santa
Cruz Sheriffâs Shooting Instructor, Deputy Michael MacDonald, literally
shooting, without provocation or any lawful reason at Mr. Clive
Boustred with Mr. Boustredâs three and seven year old sonâs in the
Deputyâs direct line of fire. Following this extraordinary
assault on Mr. Boustred and his children by the Santa Cruz Sheriffâs,
Mr. Boustred has been consistently, outrageously and maliciously
prosecuted by Santa Cruz County Sheriffs and District Attorney office.

ARGUMENT

Prosecution
having failed to produce any indictment and Defendant having entered no
plea, Defendant demurrers to the complaint as the charges are defective
on their face and insufficient to establish a prima-facia
evidence. The charges do not meet the elements nor conform to
the governing statutes, pursuant to California Penal Code 1004(1),(4)
& (5) or the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the United
States of America.

PC
Â§1004. The defendant may demur to the accusatory pleading at any time
prior to the entry of a plea, when it appears upon the face thereof
either:

(1). If
an indictment, that the grand jury by which it was found had no legal
authority to inquire into the offense charged, or, if any information
or complaint that the court has no jurisdiction of the offense charged
therein;

(4).
That the facts stated do not constitute a public offense;

(5).
That it contains matter which, if true, would constitute a legal
justification or excuse of the offense charged, or other legal bar to
the prosecution.

Prosecution
claims in COUNT 1, F17078, that Defendant âOn or
about 09/02/2008 and 09/03/2008, in the above named Judicial District,
the crime of RESISTING EXECUTIVE OFFICER, in violation of PENAL CODE
SECTION 69, a Felony, was committed by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did
unlawfully attempt by means of threats and violence to deter and
prevent Sheriff Steve Robbins, Sgt. Fred Plageman, and Sgt Christine
Swannack who each was then and there an executive officer, from
performing a duty imposed upon such officer by law, and did
knowingly resist by the use of force and violence said
executive officer in the performance of his/her duty.â

There are no
facts supporting the Prosecutionsâ claim.

To the contrary
to the charges, Defendant went out of his way to communicate and
provide the Santa Cruz Sheriffs with information and facts relating to
the void nature of the order issued by Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH
evicting Defendant from Defendantâs home and homestead on the day IRWIN
H. JOSEPH was attempting to have himself dismissed from the lawsuit
Defendant had filed against IRWIN H. JOSEPH - See Exhibit H which
includes 15 separate legal reasons by Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPHâS
eviction order was void and of no legal force which Defendant emailed
to the Santa Cruz Sheriffs on Wed 9/3/2008.

Defendant
clearly went out of his way to peacefully cooperate with the Santa Cruz
Sheriffs. To suggest anything to the contrary is insane!

Following
emailing the Santa Cruz Sheriffs extensive evidence proving the order
evicting Defendant from his home and homestead was void, Defendant
had setup a meeting with the Santa Cruz Sheriffs to fully discuss the
issue and attorney Ms. Wells also contacted and communicated
with the Santa Cruz Sheriffs in this regard. The
Santa Cruz Sheriffs scheduled a meeting on Tuesday September the 9th
for Defendant to sit down with them to discuss Commissioner Josephâs
illegal eviction order. The Santa Cruz Sheriffs
arrested Defendant on Saturday September 6th
before the date they had scheduled to meet with Defendant in regard to
the Commissionerâs unlawful eviction order!

Furthermore,
the Defendant was not present when the Commissioner issued the illegal
order and Defendant had never been served the order â the
Sheriffs arrested Defendant before he had even been served the order â
a fact the Sheriffs were aware of as they had discussed this on the
phone with the Defendant!

Prosecution
claims in COUNT 2 (F17075): âOn
of about 09/02/2008, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of
DISOBEYING COURT ORDER, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 166(a)(4), a
Misdemeanor, was committed by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully
commit contempt of court by willful disobedience of a process and order
lawfully issued by a court, to wit, Family Law Findings and Order after
Hearing, FL 16028.â

Commissioner
IRWIN H. JOSEPH does not have subject jurisdiction in said Family Law
case FL 16028 not only because Mr. Boustred never gave IRWIN H. JOSEPH
any such subject matter jurisdiction as required by law, but because
Mr. Boustred specifically limited IRWIN H. JOSEPHâS jurisdiction to one
and only one factor and that being the return of Mr. Boustredâs
passport. In all hearings IRWIN H. JOSEPH ignored Mr. Boustredâs demand
for a qualified Judge â it should be judicially noticed that said
Commissioner has acted in a similar fashion in many other Family Court
cases Defendant has been made aware of.

Said order
issued by Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH to evict Defendant from
Defendantâs home on the very day Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH was
attempting to have himself dismissed from the United States District
Court Case C08 00546 Defendant was in the process of prosecuting
against Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH, is clearly not only a void order,
it is a criminal act by said Commissioner which not only
shocks the conscience it violates fundamental homestead laws and
completely disregards a lawful Stipulated Order issued by a qualified
Judge the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack.

See the
following Exhibits for proof:

EXHIBIT
A: Stipulated Court Orders of August 13, 2002; Judy 12 and 31, 2002
representing a final judgment and the payout of respondent
for the home at 210 Suncrest Dr. in August of 2002.
Note this is also the only lawful Custody order regarding Petitionerâs
children

EXHIBIT
D: Commissioner Irwin H. Josephâs first attempt to issue an illegal
order to evict Petitioner from his Homestead and office. Note
the day the Commissioner orders the eviction is the very day the
Commissioner is attempting to have himself dismissed from the lawsuit
Petitioner filed against the Commissioner (May 23, 2008) â see Exhibit E.
The Sheriffs agreed this order was void. Petitioner provided
the court proof of payout of the home to his ex wife in compliance with
the July 31, 2002 Stipulated Order. Mr. Boustredâs room mate,
Amy Miller (who was in critical condition in hospital at the time of
the hearing, about which Joseph was noticed), however took the illegal
order seriously and moved out of Mr. Boustredâs home as soon as she go
out of hospital, Amy died two months later.

EXHIBIT
E: U.S. District Court Case C08 00546 where Joseph attempted
to have himself dismissed from the case Defendant was prosecuting
against him on May 23, 2008

EXHIBIT
F: Commissioner Irwin H. Josephâs second attempt to
issue an order to evict Petitioner from his Homestead. Note
the Santa Cruz Sheriffs falsely arrested Petitioner four days before
they scheduled a meeting with Petitioner to discuss the
order. They held Petitioner on a $200,000 bail while the
Commissioner had another hearing in an attempt to have himself
dismissed from the case Petitioner filed against the Commissioner. See
Exhibit G.

EXHIBIT
G: U.S. District Court Case C08 00546 where Joseph attempted again to
have himself dismissed from the case while Petitioner was held under
false arrest with bail set at $200,000 -see Exhibit H.

EXHIBIT
H: Email and proof sent to sheriffs that Irwin Josephâs eviction order
was utterly void and an illegal and a criminal act by said Commissioner.

The
Commissionerâs other orders barring Defendant from communicating with
Defendantâs children, Exhibit I, and barring Defendant âfrom providing
any evidence, oral or documentary, as to any claim he has or may
advance regarding this right to be reimbursed by the Respondent
relative to any issue.â and Waver of Rule 3.1312 Exhibit J, illustrate
how completely out of control and vindictive this Commissioner is.

The Prosecution
claims in COUNT 1 (F17078): âOn or about 0906/2008, in the above named
Judicial District, the crime of UNLAWFUL ASSAULT WEAPON ACTIVITY, in
violation of PENAL COD SECTION 12280(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by
CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully transport a Colt Car-3. Hbar
Elite, .223 caliber, assault rifle.â

Defendant was
not involved in any Assault Weapon Activity. Like any good
dad, Defendant was taking his sonâs target shooting with Defendants
lawfully purchased and licensed 223 caliber target rifle! All
of Petitionerâs arms were purchased more than a decade ago lawfully
from licensed gun shops. It should be judicially noticed that
Petitioner clearly does not intend to use his arms for any purpose
other than shooting with his children and target shooting which
Petitioner, a qualified shooting instructor, has done for all his life.

The Prosecution
claims in COUNT 2 (F17078): âOn or about 0906/2008, in the above named
Judicial District, the crime of CARRYING A LOADED FIREARM IN A VEHICLE
IN A CITY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 12301(a)(1), a Felony,
was committed by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully carry a
loaded firearm in a vehicle, while on a public street, in prohibited
areas of the county of Santa Cruz. It is further alleged,
pursuant to section 12031(a)(2)(a), that the defendant was previously
convicted of a felony offense.â

Defendant was
not carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle in a city. This charge is
similar to the false charge the Sheriffs accused Defendant of when they
shot at Defendant and his children and accused Defendant of âassault
with a deadly weaponâ! Defendant has not been lawfully
convicted or committed of any felony.

The day the
Sheriffs shot at Mr. Boustred and his children, to cover up, the
Sheriffs accused Mr. Boustred of driving at an alleged 40mph down his
private road, which is not a crime. NETCOM evidence proved
Mr. Boustred drove at 27mph and slower on that day, yet it is this fact
that the prosecution is claiming is the so-called Felony Defendant was
outrageously and fraudulently charged with and given a sham trial for â
Defendant welcomes the opportunity to re-visit this outrageous
charge. Based on the allegation, every person who drives at
27mph down a private road is a felon! Defendant is not a
felon and considers such an allegation extreme and outrageous slander
and libel.

The Santa Cruz
Sheriffs who shot at Mr. Boustred not only made up false charges to
file against Mr. Boustred consisting of two Felonies and two
Misdemeanors, they also made up a false reason to âchaseâ Mr. Boustred
in the first place see EXHIBIT K where the Sheriffs falsely charge Mr.
Boustred of a Felony Kidnap! However, the DA and Sheriffs
never prosecuted Mr. Boustred for the Felony Kidnap Mr. Boustred never
committed, instead they themselves committed the Felony Kidnap of Mr.
Boustredâs children!

Relating to the
Sheriffs shooting at Mr. Boustred, Mr. Boustred was given a completely
sham trial by a Judge in bad standing who was rated by the Judicial
Nominations Committee as âNot Qualifiedâ. In said trial, Mr. Boustred
was prevented from submitting any evidence that proved his innocence â
for the Opening Brief incorporating extensive evidence and proof
regarding said sham trial see
http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuseopening_brief_SC-Danner.htm,
incorporated herein by reference.

When the United
States District Court issued and Order to Show Cause as to why Mr.
Boustred was found guilty of a Felony for traveling at 27mph or an
alleged 40mph down his private road with no other vehicles or people on
the road, Santa Cruz County responded with a âNotice of Non Interestâ
EXVIBIT L, voiding said trial, charges and claims by the County.

Clearly driving
safely at 27 mph down a private road is not a Felony and Mr. Boustred
is not a Felon. However, Mr. Boustred has been denied any
fair hearing since the Sheriffs Shot at him, save the Honorable Judge
Robert B. Atack dismissing two other outrageous possibly also âdivorce
relatedâ suits filed against Mr. Boustred and the Honorable Judge Sigel
dismissing another false case maliciously prosecuted against Defendant.

Prosecutionâs
claim that Mr. Boustred is a felon and has been lawfully convicted of a
Felony will clearly not meet the standards necessary to constitute a
public offense and will show any jury the simple fact that the Santa
Cruz Sheriffs have been maliciously prosecuting Defendant ever since
they shot at Defendant and his children.

The same
argument and failure to state facts that constitute any public offence
apply to the remaining COUNTS filed against Defendant in F17078:

The Prosecution
claims in COUNT 3 (F17078): âOn or about 0906/2008, in the above named
Judicial District, the crime of POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY A FELON, in
violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 12021, (A)(1) a Felony, was committed
by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully own, possess, purahase,
receive, and have custody and control of the following firearms: 1)
Colt Car-3 Hbar Elite, .223 caliber assault rifle, 2) Springfield
Armory, V 10, .45 caliber pistol, 3) Cal Webley, Army model revolver,
.455/.476 caliber, and, 4) Mossberg, 12 gage shotgun, model 5500 MK 2,
the said Defendant having theretofore been duly and legally convicted
of a felonyâ

The Prosecution
claims in COUNT 4 (F17078): âOn or about 0906/2008, in the above named
Judicial District, the crime of POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION, in violation
of PENAL CODE SECTION 12316(b)(1) a Felony, was committed by CLIVE
FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully own, possess and have
under control ammunition and reloaded ammunition.

Defendant had
never been served the order

In regard to
Case number M45132, with the extraordinary breadth of malicious
prosecutions filed against Defendant, Defendant is not exactly sure
what he is being charged with in this case. When officers
stopped the vehicle Defendant was a passenger in on or about 7/21/2008
relating to the charges in M45132, once the officers learned Mr.
Boustredâs name and were falsely advised by a Santa Cruz Sheriff that
Mr. Boustred was guilty of a âFelony Child Endangermentâ (yet more
fabrications by Santa Cruz Sheriffs), Defendant, a passenger in the
vehicle, was singled out from the other passengers and arrested and
charged with being âdrunk in publicâ. Mr. Boustred was
neither drunk nor in public. None of the other five
passengers or the driver were charged or arrested as they too had
committed no crime.

It should be
Judicially noted that when Mr. Boustred enquired of the officers who
were arresting him what the MENS REA, ACTUS REUS or CORPUS DELICTI he
was being accused of was, the officers where utterly unfamiliar with
these three most basic elements that are necessary to make up a
crime. According to the officers, they had never even heard
of the terms before and were still clueless when Mr. Boustred explained
the terms as Act, Intent and Damage (perhaps the officers were
drunk?). It appears that we have armed officers who have no
clue as to the three fundamental and mandatory elements of a crime
roaming the street arresting people the Sheriffâs donât like.
Perhaps the prosecution believes that asking officers the reason why
one is being singled out and arrested for no apparent reason is
âobstructing / delaying a peace officerâ, an officer who has absolutely
no clue as to the most fundamental and basic elements of the law are?

CONCLUSION

By failing to
provide any facts substantiating the underlying claim that Defendant âdid
knowingly resist by the use of force and violenceâ, when
Defendant was peacefully and actively cooperating with the Sheriffs
over the telephone and email and provided the Sheriffs with extensive
evidence (Exhibit H) regarding proof that Commissioner IRWIN H.
JOSEPHâS void order evicting Defendant from Defendantâs homestead on
the day JOSEPH was attempting to have himself dismissed from the case
Defendant was actively prosecuting against JOSEPH (Exhibit B), the
prosecution has failed to state any facts constituting a public offence
and the entire case is undermined and constitutes no public offence.

The Sheriffs
had no right nor any legal basis to obtain a warrant to arrest
Defendant who had not even been served the illegal order he was being
accused of disobeying.
Defendant fully cooperated with and communicated with and setup a
meeting with the Sheriffs to discuss the order Defendant had not been
served. The Sheriffs arrested Defendant before said meeting
or service of said order on Defendant.

The Sheriffs
had no warrant or right to search Defendantâs vehicle or home, neither
did they have any decency to sit in ambush for Defendant when Defendant
went to pick up his little boys who are so desperate to see their dada
as Defendant is to see his sons. Defendant was arrested away
from and outside of his locked vehicle (The sheriffs took Defendantâs
keyâs from Defendant after Defendant was being transported to the Santa
Cruz Jail so as to go back and search Defendants vehicle.
After arresting Defendant, the Sheriffs falsely arrested Defendantâs
room mate at Defendantâs home and held him on a six hour hold in jail,
they then broke into Defendantâs home while assisting Defendantâs
ex-wife to trespass on and steal evidence from Defendants home and
homestead and gave possession of Defendantâs home and homestead to
Defendantâs ex-wife who was paid off in full pursuant to the Stipulated
Court Order issued by the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack on August 13,
2002 by Defendant, said order having also been served on the Sheriffs â
Exhibit H).

It should also
be judicially noticed that Defendant has been forced to pay $200,000 in
bail to the Santa Cruz Sheriffs â As a consequence of the Santa Cruz
Sheriffs and District Attorneyâs ongoing malicious prosecution,
Defendant has finally been forced into bankruptcy. However,
spread with the costs of defending himself, finding a place to live,
having his businesses wiped out, again, Defendant has not been able to
afford a Bankruptcy attorney and his bankruptcy case was dismissed
(inexplicitly according to the bankruptcy Trustee).

Commissioner
IRWIN H. JOSEPH has apparently issued another void order to authorized
a clerk to sign away Defendantâs rights to Defendantâs home and
homestead in violation of the Stipulated Court Order issued by the
Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack and JOSEPH issued an order to set aside
the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atackâs order.

The facts
stated in these cases do not constitute a public offense and the
matters contained therein, which, if true, constitute legal
justification or excuse of the so-called offenses charged in addition to
other legal barâs to the prosecution such as the fact that the Santa
Cruz District Attorney and many of the Santa Cruz Sheriffâs colleagues
are or have been defendants in cases Defendant prosecuted against them,
thereby preventing said Sheriffâs and District Attorney from obtaining
subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant as they clearly and
blatantly have reasons to be biased against Defendant.

Article the
seventh [Amendment V], of the Constitution for the United States of
America dictates that âNo person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Juryâ. The prosecution has produced no indictment of any Grand
Jury against Defendant. This case must be dismissed as it
fails to meet the mandate of the 5th Amendment.

In
a 1906 Supreme Court Case, [Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)], the
Supreme Court recognized that the Grand Jury function is to âstand
between the prosecutor and the accused,â and to determine
whether a charge is legitimate, or is âdictated by malice or
personal ill willâ. In another Supreme Court Case,
[United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)], the Supreme Court
stated that the independent grand juryâs purpose is not only to
investigate possible criminal conduct, but to act as a âprotector
of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action,â.

Pursuant to PC
Â§1004 (1), (4) & (5), in the interests of justice, especially
considering the outrageous slew of malicious prosecutions that have
been frivolously filed under the color of law against Defendant, these 7th,
8th and 9th malicious
prosecutions against Defendant should be dismissed. After
all, should a man have to be put through such hell to get divorced from
his adulterous wife who takes off with his former Personal Assistant?

Let it be
judicially noticed that Defendant has had his career and companies
wiped out, and his children and home taken from him and handed to the
man who reported daily to Defendant as Defendantâs Personal Assistant,
a man who by the only lawful Stipulated Court order in Defendantâs
divorce case, is bared from any contact with Defendantâs
children. Yet it is Defendant who is now unlawfully barred by
from any contact with Defendantâs young sons. Defendant could
not even wish his sons Happy Christmas and he could not even wish is
son happy 9th birthday this last
Wednesday. Is this what the Santa Cruz Superior Court, Santa
Cruz District Attorney and Sheriffs want to be recognized for?

VERIFICATION

I, Clive
Boustred, am a Party in the above-entitled action. I have read the
foregoing Document(s), Affidavit(s), Declaration(s), and/or Materials,
Id., including referenced and/or attached documents, and/or duplicates
of such documents and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my
own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on
information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be
true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the United States of America and the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,
and that I have executed this Declaration at Santa Cruz California